Integration of Design and DFSS

A new powerful route for innovation and holistic product design

Emil Georgiev

GE Healthcare

Role of Design organization in product development

• Design of enclosures / hardware

•

Design of graphical user interface (GUI)

• Drive customer needs assessment

• Drive evolutionary innovation

• Industrial designers

• Visual designers

• Human factors

• Usability engineers

• Design research experts

• Facilitation experts

Responsibilities SkillsTraditional Function

Emerging Functions

Marketing

Engineering (R&D)ManufacturingSupply Chain

Traditional Role of Design with GE Healthcare

What should we make? How should we make it?

Marketing tools / process DFSS

Time

Design pushDecoration station on the way out

Design

User Centered Design?

Customer Needs

The Uncertainty in Product Design due to the Human Element within the customer domain

They will make all sorts of user errors because they won’t read your manuals or follow your training instructions

Or will complain about your product no matter what

They won’t tell you what they really need

Or, will tell you whatever you want to hear

Observational Research….The Missing

DFSS Chapter

Understanding the needs of our customers…key to successful product design

DFSS VOC Toolkit*• Customer Interviews

• Focus Groups

• Customer Surveys

• Internal Research

• Competitive Analysis

• Affinity process

• Structure Tree

• Kano Survey

•

Customer Oriented Product Concepting (COPC)

• PUGH Matrix

* GE DFSS Course, V2.0, Dec 2002

Challenges•

How do we separate wants form needs?

•

How do we understand the real needs associated with wants?

•

How do we understand needs that our customers have difficulties articulating?

•

How do we capture customer needs our customers are not even aware of?

Observational Research

“… the process of learning about ordinary users by observing and listening to them in action.”

Who are our users?……What are their actual needs?What do they do?………Why do they do it? -

their goals?

How do they work?…….What is their environment?

What can we learn from Observing?

Ultimate way to build customer intimacy… uncover untapped opportunities

Manufacturer’s Perspective:

The refrigerator is a device for cooling, preserving, and dispensing

food.

What did we think we designed for?

User’s Perspective:The refrigerator is all that +

• family gallery• communication center• entertainment center

Question:What are the implications of this observation to design?

How is it actually used?

How does Observational Research… …differ from traditional VOC?

Direct observation of how product / services are being used –

foundation for understanding customer needs:•

Verbalized (what customers will tell you)•

Non-verbalized (deduced from observations)

Understand the context of product use•

Customer workflow•

Overall environment in which equipment / services are being used•

User roles and responsibilities•

Safety hazards•

Misuse

The “Cable Jungle” in a CathLab Procedure The “Cable Jungle” in an MR Procedure with Anesthesia Pediatric Patient

Our customers deliver a service to patients that often involves use of multiple products.

Observation reveals the true needs.

If they don’t know any better….

•

Clinical roles / responsibilities

•

Patient segments / influences on workflow

•

User’s key tasks, work strategies. What are they trying to do? How?

•

What is the user intent? Why?

•

Communications between users

The Actors

•

Pictures / sketches of the environment (rooms, equipment….)

•

Any artifacts the user utilizes or refers to

The Environment

How Works gets Done, Why do they do it

•

Episodes of patient care

•

User’s chief complaints of what does not work and the key issues they are experiencing (verbatim)

•

What works or does not work in the tools the user is using (from observation)

•

Non-articulated needs and opportunities

•

Observed facial expressions and body language

The Stage The Stories

At a Glance What type of Data to capture as you observe

What Customers want isn’t always

what they really need

Customers cannot always articulate

their needs

Customers adapt to bad designs if there are no alternatives

A way to find out before we start designing…….

The Power of Observation

The problems observed are opportunities to be solved

User Centered Innovation….The DFSS

Roots

“We think innovation is always a big technology breakthrough…

it doesn’t have to be.”

Other Avenues to Innovation…

Technology/Evolution

Gillette Sensor RazorCreated special mfg. processes with 22 Patents; Not a radical change in shaving.

Technology/Revolution

Garmin Portable GPSUsed existing GPS Infrastructure to create a product most car owners probably wouldn’t know to ask for.

User-Centered/Revolution

TivoTransformed how television is watched; came from deep understanding of user behaviors and needs and the ways they were changing.

Product Evolution

Focus on improvements to existing products and brands. Uses conventional market research to measure and respond to existing market needs.

Product Revolution

Seeks to create entirely new product categories and markets. To move beyond existing markets, observational research and design methods should be used instead of common research methods.

Technology-Driven Process

Conventional product development process

led by engineers, marketers, sales, manufacturing and operations experts.

User-Centered Process

Design efforts that are more often led by

designers, human factors engineers, anthropologists, sociologists, and engineers.

User-Centered/EvolutionApple iPod“Late” to digital audio player market; offered complete end-to-end system. 80% market share.

Why we need to innovate differently

Shift in Corporate ThinkingSupporting Global Trends Design thinking

• Learn from People

• Connect with People

People-centered Brands:

• Globalization

• Consumerism

• Ubiquitous Information Access

• Social/Professional Networking

• Open Innovation

Key Factors

User Centered Innovation Process -

Overview

Observational Research

Surveys

Business Knowledge

Interviews / Focus Groups Needs

Affinitization

Business & Technology Inputs

Design Research Findings

Phase 1Collect Customer Needs

Phase 2Determine Customer Priorities

Phase 3Innovation Workout

Phase 4Scope Solutions

Business DrivenPhase 1Design Driven

Participatory Focus Groups

Opportunities Mapping

Business Decision

Design Research

Workflow Visualization

NPI Route

(Product)

Prototyping

User Testing / Feedback

Proof of Concept

Business Case

M0

ProcessPilot

Pilot review

Instutionalization

Long Term

(Product)

Set Based Design

Technical Programs

GRC Projects

IP

BenchmarkingExperience Briefs

Ideation

Solution Concepts

Phase 1Collect

Customer Needs

Phase 2Determine Customer Priorities

Phase 3Innovation Workout

ObservationsExisting Business Data

Focus Groups Surveys

Problem StatementsPhotos /Video / Audio

User RolesEnvironment

Prioritized Problem Statements

Workflow MapsUse scenariosStoryboards

Participatory Focus Groups, Surveys

Technology TrendsBusiness Priorities

Competitive Intelligence

Solution Ideas & Concepts:• Sketching

• Features

• Workflow and Process Maps

• Highlights

• Strengths & Limitations

• Next steps

User Centered Innovation …a Data based Process Data Inputs / Outputs

Customer Needs Data Streams and Data Handling

1. Primary data 2. Data aggregation 3. Data Selection

Ethnography Sources

Observational Research

Cultural Probes

DFSS VOC Toolkit

Interviews, Surveys, Focus Groups….

Internal Business Data

Complaints

Trade shows

Benchmarking

……

Building Data Affinities

1.

Extracting insights / problem statements from primary sources

2.

Grouping data in categories based on subject commonality

•

Selecting representative set for prioritization

•

Identification of key insights / problems or categories

•

Subset usually restricted to 10

•

Done preferably by customers

Establishing Customer Priorities…Conjoint Tools

3. Paired Comparison Analysis (Conjoint)

1.Review of Problem Statements / Insights

2. Selection of key problem statements

for prioritization (customers)

Participatory Focus GroupSurvey Tool

3. Conjoint containing Survey / Analysis

1.Affinitized Problem Statements / Insights

Where customer & business needs come in focus with technology capabilities

Innovation Workout

Review Findings

Identify Key Opportunities

Develop Opportunity

Maps

Ideas Generation

•

Affinitized Insights

•

Customer Priorities

•

Visuals

•

Workflow & Environmental Maps

•

Storyboards

•

Patient Segmentation

•

Benchmarking Findings

•

Brainstorming Opportunities

•

Grouping Opportunities

•

Mind Mapping

•

Key Insight Statements Transfer

•

Visualization (Sketches, Workflow Maps, Cut-out and OR images)

• Features• Sketching• New Workflow Maps• Description Highlights• Strengths and Limitations• Next steps

• Brainstorming

•

Idea generation Tools

• Ideas Shopping

Solution Concepts Development

Design for Usability….Incorporating User Interface Design in

DFSS

Simple, One time use,

Low user interactivity

Complex, Years of use

High user interactivity

UI Design Complexity

Every product has user interface…meant to be used by people

The Concept of User Interface

Why is UI Design Important?

Branding / Perception

Customer productivity / ease of use

User / patient safety –

user errors

+ +

DFU is a DFSS Toolkit for designing the User Interface (UI) of a product or service.

Typical User Interface Aspects include:

Defining customer interactions with product / service

Hardware / Enclosures / Packaging

Graphical User Interface (GUI)

Technical Documentation

How is DFU different from the Other Design Aspects?

Human (User) Response driven

• User productivity

Typical Considerations include:

• Ergonomics / Human factors / Usability

• User errors

• Preferences / User satisfaction

Usability CTQs…the integration point of UCD and DFSS

UCD DFSS

Usability CTQs

Usability GoalsHuman performance focused

More qualitative then quantitative

Defined in the context of use

Critical to Quality (CTQs)Measurable

Uses Performance Standards

Internal measure of success

Data captured in scorecards

Traditionally defined for instrumental measurements of equipment /materials performance

Measurable

Human performance focused

Defined in the context of use

External measure of product success

Usability performance standards

Data captured in scorecards

How are Usability CTQs different from Standard DFSS CTQs?

•

Externally focused–

Actual Users

–

Representative Tasks

•

Human Performance Data–

Efficiency

–

Errors

–

Learnability

–

Satisfaction

•

Ultimate design success metrics

Usability CTQs –

the first external DFSS metrics

Customers buy our products and services in order to complete specific jobs.

To complete these jobs Customers usually go through a set of specific tasks.

Usability CTQs

quantify how

successful customers are in completing these tasks.

Watch TV channels

Install systemLoad channelsChannel selectionEtc.

* Adapted fromHouse of Quality, Hauser & Clausing, Harvard Business Review May-June 1988

Houseof

Quality#1

Houseof

Quality#2

Houseof

Quality#3

Usability CTQs(HOW’s)

System Features (HOW’s) Product

Functionality(HOW’s)

Use

r tas

ks( W

HA

T’s)

Usa

bilit

y CTQ

s(W

HA

T’s )

Syst

em F

eatu

res

(WH

AT’

s )

Usability Targets for Product

Performance address Usability Targets

Usability CTQs and CTQ Flowdown

System Features To address Usability

Targets

Usability Targets For Product

Performance

Usability CTQs

Definitions …..in context of tasksUsability Attribute* Definition Typical Metrics Data Type

S urve y Re sponse s - Collect numerical rankings applied to us er interface qualities , meas uring overall eas e-of-us e.

Discrete

Observed confusion, frustration, or satisfaction - facial expressions, verbal expressions, body language, etc.

Qualitative Description

Time to finish a task - Track the time it takes to complete key representative tasks with the system.Time spent navigating menusTime spent in online helpTime spent recovering from errors

Low Errors The system should cause the user to have few errors and make error recovery easy.

Number of Errors - Track errors that are made by novice and experienced users during the completion of high priority tasks with the system.

Discrete

Ability to repeat a process - Can a relatively new user successfully repeat key tasks?

Attribute (Y/N)

Time to complete task - Track the time it takes for a new user to become proficient with the system (able to complete key tasks successfully).

Continuous

Number of Tasks completed successfully Track the number of key tasks successfully completed .

Discrete

Number of Errors - Track the number of errors an intermittent user makes while completing key tasks.

Dis crete

Time - Track the time it takes for an intermittent user to successfully complete key tasks.

Continuous

Continuous

Learnability The system should be easy to learn, so users can get work done with minimal training.

Memorability The system should be easy to remember, so casual users don't have to re-learn it.

Satisfaction** The system should be easy to use and well-liked.

Efficiency The system should be efficient to use, maximizing user productivity.

*As defined by Jakob Nielsen in “Usability Engineering”, AP Professional, Boston. 1994

** Only usability CTQ not defined in a task context (catch all metrics)

Defining Usability CTQs –

Approach

System Level CTQs

Simplified Exam Interactions

Sub-System Level CTQs

(GUI)Set Scan

Parameters

Develop Usability CTQs based on baseline data for key tasks associated with breakthrough program opportunities

CTQ UnitsData Type GE Baseline

Competitor A

Competitor B

Lower Limit

Upper Limit Target

Number of Steps count D 15 12 16 <10Time to Complete sec C 150 135 120Number of Errors count D 0.5 <0.3User Satisfaction 1-7 Scale D 4.7 (Median) >5

Berryman scorecard area

Defining Usability CTQ –

WIP Challenges

•

Rapidly evolving technology….hard to set performance

standards…..but strong sense of direction

•

Resources intensive…, limited clinical resources availability

•

Expensive equipment…very limited external benchmarking

opportunities

•

Multiple additional sources of variability:

• Operator profile (novice, expert etc…)

• Operator familiarity with system

• Significant degree of customization of protocols

•

Multiple responses (image quality, time to complete, ease of use attributes etc.)

DFU Highlights –

Usability Studies

All usability studies have the following 5 characteristics:

1.

Improve product usability

2.

Actual (or prospective) users.

3.

Performing real representative tasks.

4.

Observe and record actions / users feedback

5.

Analyze the data / recommend design changes

Formative Usability Studies –

looking for red flags

Plan

Prepare Materials

Pilot

Execute

Report results

Iterate design& evaluations

5-8 Participants

Assessment, Exploration

Summative Usability Studies –

establish capability

Plan

Prepare Materials

Pilot

Execute

Report results

Move to next phase (tollgate) or freeze UI design

30+ Participants

Validation, Baseline, Comparative

Design of Discovery 750 MRI System

Case Study –

Design of Discovery MRI System

MR Product Redesign Goals –

CTQ Translation

Improve scanner productivity to lower the cost per exam

25% Reduction of the time needed to complete routine MR exams (exp. user)

Speed the rate of learning a new scanner

20% Reduction of the time needed to obtain

proficiency for routine exams (exp. user)

UCD Goal

UCD Goal

Usability CTQ

Usability CTQ

MR System Usability CTQs –

Detailed DefinitionsWhy Relative Targets?

Definitions

GE Exam Protocols Protocols Customization

CTQ No

DefinitionCTQ name Unit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit Target

Data Type How to measure? GRR

1

Targets 25% reduction of the time to complete routine MR exams (brain, knee, abdomen) for experienced users

Exam completion efficiency min TBD

25% reduction versus previous product,

benchmarked locally CMorae time stamp of experienced user sessions Y

2

Targets 25% reduction of the time to complete routine MR exams (brain, knee, abdomen) for experienced users

MR System Learnability days TBD

20% reduction versus previous product,

benchmarked locally C

Inflection point of time to complete vs duration of use since instalation for experienced users Y

Example -

MR Sub-system Usability CTQs

Designing the GUI

Setting Usability CTQs for a design iteration Deliverables Concept Goals Metrics

Iter. 3 unresolved Task view vs Data viewImproved visual recognition (60% last iteration)

1.Task completion2. Learnability

Status indicators - post processing tasks

Improved visual recognition for status of post processing task and in particular applications that are running in the background

1.Visual recognition2. Learnability

Collapsing/Expanding nested tasks

Still needs improvements on the indicator. (40% last iteration )

1.Visual recognition2. Learnability

Edit Film / Archive / Network tasks

Allow for redundancy in accessing how to edit tasks - access options include "Set-up", "Add", Right click, click on status box Task Completion

Viewing application running in the background

Improved, more intuitive, design that allows users to access this view (Task completion around 60% last iteration) Task completion

Iter. 4 concepts Scan Functionality Intuitive way to run a simple scan Task completionAbility to successfully complete a manual prescan

1.Task completion2. Learnability

Ability to execute breath-hold scan1.Task completion2. Learnability

Ability to uutilize Realtime (use protocol notes?)

1.Task completion2. Learnability

Ability to execute a scan that requires user control of pressing scan multiple times??

1.Task completion2. Learnability

Step Expected Action Task Assessment / Feedback Comments

Task # 1 Complete T1 Sagittal ScanQ: Your localizer just finished. You now need to prescribe and run the T1 sagittal series. What would you do? Scan range and parameters for T1 sagittal are OK.

1 Click on “Set-up” Completed independentlyRequired prompts 1…2…3Failed

2 Click on “Save Rx” Completed independentlyRequired prompts 1…2…3Failed

3 Click on “Scan” Completed independentlyRequired prompts 1…2…3Failed

Developing Usability testing script / data capture approach

Step Expected Action Task Assessment / Feedback Comments

Task # 5 Complete 3DTOF ScanQ: You need to prescribe your 3D TOF next. What would you do?

1 Select 3DTOF and click on “set-up”

Completed independentlyRequired prompts 1…2…3Failed

Q: If you wanted to add SAT pulses to this series, how would you do it?

2 User presses SAT in Graphic Rx toolbar.

Completed independentlyRequired prompts 1…2…3Failed

Q: What would you do if you wanted to zoom the localized image?

3 Click on Magnify + icon Completed independentlyRequired prompts 1…2…3Failed

Q: Imagine that you had zoomed and moved the image around, how would to reset your image display? 3 Click on Tools menu and

Display Normal Completed independentlyRequired prompts 1…2…3Failed

Iteration data capture and scorecard summary

CTQ CTQ name Unit Target Actual Z target Z actual

1 WFM Navigation Task Completion % 80% completion of underlying tasks 71% 2.34 2.062 WFM Navigation Task Learnability % 95% completion of underlying tasks in

a repeat situation90% 3.15 2.08

3 WFM Navigation Status Visual Recognition % 80% for initial recognition 79% 2.34 2.324 WFM Navigation Status Learnability % 90% for navigation status recognition in

a repeat situation 100% 2.78 6.00

5 Graphic Rx Task Completion % 80% completion of underlying tasks 73% 2.34 2.1410 Scanning Functionality Task Completion % 80% completion of underlying tasks 100% 2.34 5.7611 Overall User Satisfaction with Design Likert

Scale70% of users will rate the overall satisfaction greater then neutral 100% 2.02 6.00

Assembly Zst 2.48 2.43

Example –

Discovery MR System level CTQs

Initial Data

Use UPM for product pricing / positioningProduct Definition Phase Pre-Release Evaluation

•

Define Product Success Targets (Usability CTQs)

•

Usability CTQs setting around critical customers tasks in terms of:

• Efficiency

• Learnability

• Error rates

• Memmorability

• Satisfaction

• Measure Usability CTQs

•

Use UPM data as key input into product pricing customer impact considerations

•

Develop go to market strategy and product release marketing communication materials leveraging UPM

Design

CTQ:

25% reduction of time to complete routine exams (brain, knee, abdomen) by experienced users

Capability:

32% reduction of time to complete brain exam (preliminary estimates using Fitt’s

law evaluation)

Discovery MR…post release workflow data…Cardiac exam

Scanner: Baseline System 1

Baseline System 2

Discovery MR

Minimum Exam Room Time

20:30 19:30 11:15

Mouse Clicks / Tech. Actions

76 41 6

Patient Breath-Hold Time (sec)

21 16 6-10

Opportunities for Error

>30 14 <6

85% reduction in steps42% reduction of exam time57% + reduction in error opportunities37% reduction of breath hold time

Customer Productivity

Patient Comfort / Satisfaction

Marketing

What should we make?

Marketing tools / process (CECOR)

Engineering (R&D)ManufacturingSupply Chain

How should we make it?

DFSS

Design

User Centered Innovation

Time

Emerging Role of Design within GE Healthcare and other GE Businesses

Design for Usability WIP

•

Include Observational Research in DFSS toolkit

•

Extend DFSS into UI design / absorb UCD toolkit

•

Innovation???…is DFSS still focused on how to build products, not what to build?

Food for thought – opportunities to expand DFSS